It's just that the Palestinians (and their very naive supporters) apparently don't make the link between ''having 10 kids to smash the Zionist ennemy'' and ''being poor''.

They do. They just accept that setback in return for the inconvenience it causes Israel to formally annex said land, which assures that their plight of independence lives on. If their pride is such that they will rather as a people collectively endure self-imposed poverty than becoming a part of Israel, all the more power to them. I'm not judging the intelligence of it; it might be stupid, it might be smart, but whatever it is, I at the very least find their tenacity admirable. And, as previously mentioned, it apparently is working.

What bothers you is not their poverty. You don't give a **** about their poverty. What bothers you is that they're so committed that they would hurt themselves just to not let the ones that you're siding with win. And that in turn bothers you because a) you don't understand it and b) you just don't like them.

You have used three terms thus far. In your first post, you referred to "People of Gaza", in your second to "Palestinians" and now "Jew killing Islamist radicals". Way to move the goal post. My post was not a response to "Jew killing Islamist radicals". Nice try. But if anything, this latest post of yours only illustrates even clearer my second paragraph.

And this, in a nutshell, is why the peace process has never worked. All other cultural, religious, and historical claims and hotpoints aside, at the end of the day there's a lot of human nature that's inclined towards being entrenched, unreasonable, and bombastic when your group is pitted against another. What we essentially have is the same underlying problems and attitudes that lead to gang warware in urban America. It's not really about beliefs. It's about being being oppressed (as the Jews were and as the Palestinians are) and turning to a group of fellows whom you can agree with and feel a part of. It's about winning and being better and being right. Both sides are awful, violent, unreasonable, and ultimately moronic where progressing towards peace is concerned.

In my experience, there are a whole lot of people in both Israel and Palestine (the West Bank anyway; obvious I didn't go into Gaza) who either don't really care about the conflict or just want it to go away so they can live their lives. Unfortunately, the loud and adamant voices of extremism dominate the discourse, such as it is. A lot of you are displaying this problem in a microcosm here. Brilliant.

BTW, the extreme efficiency of the Iron Dome must be a very serious warning for Iran and their proxies.

Their only real strategic strenght is their threat of launching rockets against everything that move if you displease them. We can see one more time here that those rockets have absolutely abject accuracy. Not only that, but they are fairly successfully intercepted.

1)Telling that the evil Jeeeews complained for nothing in WW2 (when you are not implying the Holocaust is an hoax)
2)Telling that the good and nice Palestinians are victims.

IYO, guys, what would have happened exactly if the inmates of Dachau (a mere concentration camp) had lobbed grenades at a German town ? How quickly do you think the whole camp would have been machine gunned ?

Besides, it's pretty obvious that Israel don't fire at random targets....if Israel just wanted to ''kill innocent childrens'', they would just bomb the schools.

I do agree, concentration camp is not the right analogue. That's not going to help anyone understand what's going on there, it's only meant to inflame. The more accurate comparison would be that Gaza is fairly like a ghetto.

Although the term "concentration camp" tends to bring up images of the Holocaust today (and is incorrectly used for other things such death camps), it did not originate with Nazi atrocities. I'd say Gaza fits the definition pretty well.

when you put a bunch of people of a particular ethnic/religious identifier in a place that they're not allowed to leave (ghettoes at least had non-curfew hours), that's generally called a concentration camp. the only reason gaza IS NOT typically termed as such is sensitivity to the jewish experience in europe

My original point about Gaza being overcrowded is merely that Gaza, in 1948, was hardly overcrowded. There was not really big waves of Palestinians being ''added'' to the population of Gaza because of Israel since 1948.

How, considering that the population of Gaza was multiplicated by four since 1948 by natural growth, the said overcrowding is Israel fault ?

Has anyone said that it's Israel's fault? Why are you debating imaginary opponents?

Also, why do you bring up that Egypt doesn't help them? In case you're unaware, Egypt was ruled by a US lapdog who, as I guess you would put it, licked America for the last 30 years, up until last year. Their rulers hardly reflected the will of the Egyptian people. And their current rulers would hardly dare to position themselves against Israel and/or the US. But let's put that aside. Even if I concede your point that Arabs are backstabbing people who don't give a rat's ass about the problems and plights of their fellow Arab neighbours, what do you hope to achieve with this argument? Because other Arabs don't care about Palestinians, and because Arabs are a pathologically backstabbing ruthless people who don't care about each other, they deserve to be isolated in Gaza? They deserve to be denied self-determination? Is that what you're trying to say? It sounds like it. But save us the guesswork and instead of implications and half finished arguments, say what's really on your mind.

so having the audacity to fight back against occupation negates the fact of the occupation?

The argument I'd raise here is that they're not really fighting back against occupation. The agents provocateur from IJ, HAMAS, etc strike from within occupied territory and invite response upon the occupied, there is no doubt of that. In my view, the Pasdaran is firmly satisfied with this outcome because each dead Palestinian helps them achieve their long-term goal.

But the problem is that this really has no bearing on the occupation. Israel's not a country that suffers war-weariness so you can't manipulate the people into giving up support for the war. The Knesset is blithely indifferent to international opinion, so they can't be swayed too much by outsiders. And to be fair, I think they understand the situation is a mess and that innocents are dying, but they aren't going to compromise so long as they feel insecure.

Similarly, the radicals aren't going to compromise so long as Gaza is under occupation and there's no public outcry from the Palestinians.

Although the term "concentration camp" tends to bring up images of the Holocaust today (and is incorrectly used for other things such death camps), it did not originate with Nazi atrocities. I'd say Gaza fits the definition pretty well.

Well, I'm aware of that. But the association is still the issue. A big part of that is that people tend to incorrectly believe concentration camp is synonymous with death camp. We tend to say the former but think of the latter, when they aren't the same. But you can't erase that perception, so the word is wrong to use imho.

But also because even in concentration camps proper in various places, you don't really have people still owning businesses, going to school, living in homes. This is why I feel ghetto is more appropriate.